It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

something broke half way through 911...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
if you noticed the gear shift, not many did ... it happend around 10AM.
if you notice there was a lull in the mornings activities - like a script missing its
lead actor...
after exhaustive contemplating the event - it becomes more and more obvious something broke... and flt 93 could not hit WTC 7...
but they claimed it was going to hit the WH. Congress etc...
drawing attention away from NY... but they found themselves with
WTC7 standing and no plane to hit it... because something broke.

I think this something is described by dr. Judy Wood....
in the New Hiroshima.

video.google.com...

vids.myspace.com...



[edit on 8-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 8-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]




posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
If that was the case, why didn't they just set off the demolition charges at the same time as the big tower fell? No one would have seen the way it fell and everyone would just have assumed that the big tower fell on top of it.

Why wait until 7 hours later and let the whole world clearly see the collapse?



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mark_Amy
 


govt isnt as fast as you might think... it has to get to the right decision maker... after all they PULLED wtc 7 at 5:20 .... I dont think they took it into account and there was a delay... the fires in the WTC1 & 2 were almost out... when they were pulled... so it didn't work the way they planned from the beginning in my opinion... but 3200 people mostly Americans are now dead and we do not have the guilty parties awaiting execution.



posted on Oct, 8 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 





after exhaustive contemplating the event - it becomes more and more obvious something broke... and flt 93 could not hit WTC 7...
but they claimed it was going to hit the WH. Congress etc...
drawing attention away from NY... but they found themselves with
WTC7 standing and no plane to hit it... because something broke.


Must have flunked geography....

Flight 93 took off from Newark NJ - Newark is just west of NYC and you could see the WTC from Newark

Now if you are going to hit WTC 7 why fly west all the way to Cleveland
before hijacking plane. Then after hijacking plane you do not fly EAST
but SOUTH - away from WTC 7.

You seem to have trouble reading map

Here is map of Flight 93 path notice it is going toward Washington not NYC


en.wikipedia.org...:UA93_path.svg



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
well considering I cant find a boeing at shanksville, I suspect - maybe this thing that broke just might have been an elaborate Holographic projection machine... after all no airplane parts were found from any Boeing 767 . I'm just ignorant I guess, if a plane was used we should be able to see it and do things like normal plane crashes... but who am I -- this is 2009 and gee goooly wiz ... someone found out how to make a boeing disappear what 4 times in one day... awesome technology.... but the DEW weapon is not a Halographic projecter... check out the Air Forces wish list for 2012.... for a point by point machine that sounds like what they used on 911...

go ahead and torch me... I dont know why flt 93 flew south... it can fly n-e-w-s if it wanted too... notice is spells NEWS...

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 



.....Detective Bill Wammock is the first to arrive on the scene. He recalls “nothing that resembled an airliner... we went on for hours, before we heard the news reports of a missing airliner, believing that we were dealing with a small airplane full of newspapers that had crashed. We saw no pieces of the aircraft that were larger than, maybe, a human hand. It did not look like a passenger aircraft.”



So, do you think that was a description of one of the airplanes from September 11, 2001???

NO!!! December 7, 1987. In California, near San Luis Obispo. A Pacific Southwest Airlines passenger jet...a FOUR-ENGINE jet, smaller than a Boeing 757, yes...but it crashed at high speed, nearly straigh down, and left the kind of debris field seen at Shanksville, PA. Minimal fires, also. JUST LIKE PA!!!

Instead of imagining incredible things that don't exist, like holographic projectors (that...why in the WORLD would they need to holographically project a PLANE CRASH in a field in Pennsylvania??? Makes Zero sense...)

Instead of imaging these outlandish "theories", research into actual plane crashes that show some of the same results as United 93.

And then ponder over the fact that Human remains were found. And the Cockpit voice Recorder. And the Flight Data Recorder. And engine parts. Fuselage parts. LOTS of pieces of something....sorta like what would happen in the tremendous amount of energy released when the airplane hit the ground at nearly 400 knots.

Know what a G-force is?

Look into auto accidents, just to start your education.

The g force will vary, depending on the rapidity of the stop. That's why highways have crushable barriers, the car has airbags, etc.

BUT, if you were in a car at, say, about 35 MPH and hit a brick wall? Well over 50 gs...maybe 75.

I just saw the Mythbusters dropping their dummy Buster into water, from about 180 feet up. Hits the water at about 60 MPH...guess how many gs??? Over 200!

So try to figure out the forces involved in the United 93 crash into the ground...OK?



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I don't think WTC7 would be a very good choice of a target for a plane to hit, but that's just me. It didn't stick out as far above the other buildings as the towers did, so I have to wonder how much of the building was even vulnerable to something like that.

I've seen conflicting military information as to what happened to Flight 93. I believe there were one or two officers who came out and said it was shot down despite direct orders to not bother it, since 3 planes had already made targets and so much time had elapsed between the first hijacking and this last flight that it was painfully obvious what was happening. And wasn't it Norman Moneta that testified to Cheney also having an "order" on Flight 77 that resulted in nothing be done? It seems to me like the military can only be ordered to do nothing while we are under attack for so long before officers start taking matters into their own hands.



posted on Oct, 9 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

* wtc 7 could not have been hit -- unless, WTC 1 and 2 were out of the way.... thanks man, I think we may have answered a question we havent asked yet, why 5:20 ... Now, tower two, tower one and a hour or so later wtc 7... for the finally scare. - I'll post it on LooseChange Forum.

you must also understand, that many things did not comply with the laws of physics as we know them on 911. this is a possible answer to the mysterous suspenion of the basic physics, after all the government said wtc 7 experiened Free Fall.. well thats impossible with a building underneath. thats why they are steel structures so they CANT fall down, well the only known way is with lots of explosives and well corrigraphed timed explosives. now dustification of haundreds of tons of cement - ah, ah -- let me get back to you on that - but all theories are star wars - unless you can explain it..?

funny you should mention that, it appears even one of the most skilled pilots, John Lear (and several other pilots) - were unable to crash this simulated 767, various attempts at crashing into WTC 1 or 2 simulated boeing 767, the systems , I believe wouldnt allow it to happen or something like that. also, the speed could not have been achieved..
and something about professional pilots habits, and altemeter was set>?
there is was a hole bunch of stuff like a photo of FBI guys, dropping a
jet motor on the sidewalk, no bounces no nothing it just like it fell of a truck. ha ha ha.. sort of damning - since it would take more than 4 to put it on the truck. and it was later photo'd to be a engine and it wasnt a 767.
I would have to go back and review exactly what he said. but the manuever at the Pentagon was impossible acording to him and he should know.

*I believe Rumsfeld had a slip of the tounge and didnt they give a airman a metal for the shoot down...?

video.google.com...


[edit on 9-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]

[edit on 9-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join